The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-01-15

and its rigid enforcement would de-
moralize and cripple both internal and
external commerce.
Morrill, said he had reached the con-
cIusion that it was his duty to vote to
recommit the bill. He was satisfied
that the effect of the fourth section
would be to increase the rate OF freight
for long hauls, and possibly those for
short bauls, also. Morrill, called atten-
ton TO the pI ovision of the bills which
would effect the Grand Trunk Line of
Canada.
Cullom explained what the effect of
the provision would be.
Sewell inquired whether that would
constitute an abrogation OF the treaty
of Washington.
CulIom did not so understand it. His
impression was that the treaty of Wash
ingtoa had been abrogated for some
time. tilt were not so, this was mere
| oil e regulat on. The United States
had right to require compliance with
it, and if foreign company did not
comply with it, penalty will attach.
Edmunds stated that the Both
article .of the treaty of Wash
iRgton (which seemed to be the
principal one in ills come ction)
had been terminated on the 1st of July,
] 1885, and was no longer in force. There
] Were no grounds whatever for the pre-
tense of that, among fall the other evils
that would happen, any difficulty
would arise in regard to the contra
Vening of existing treaty regulations
with Great Britain.
ingalls, said the debate in the Senate
on the fourth section in the original bill
turned on the idea that the provision
I applied to terminal points. The
| fourth section, as reported by the
| that; it meant the application of the
short and long haul principle to
every single mile of road between, ter
minaI points and to every pound of
| freight carried 1t meant local rates
! for every pound of freight carried over
the roads 1t meant the abolition of the
whole system Of cheap long hauls under
which distances had been equaliZed,
and the country shrunk up to a spans
breadth, so that practically the man who
! lived in Colorado or Dakota was put on
the same footing and conditions. so far
as the results of his labor were con-
cerned, as man who lived on the sea-
board. 1t was proposed now
| to abolish all that and to de-
eide hereafter that every pound
of freight that moved on these rail-
roads shall pay its equal proportion of
the share of freight money for every
mile over which it passed. This was a
| bill to regulate commerce, not to wreck,
ruin and destroy it. Its purpose was
humane and benefcient, and it was in
! the interest of the producers of the
country. The section against pooling
would not prevent beneicient co opera
ton between railroads in healthy con-
dition. They would have the right TO
unite for any purpose they might see
fit, but, it was a notification to those
who were duplicating railroad lines that
that process must stop. 1t was matter
of Importance to the community that
it should stop. He knew of thousands
of miles of railroad whose owners
would be better off if the rails were sold
for old IRON the ties for fire wood and
the track sowed with corn. He regret
ted that he had got to vote FOR tn II,
I and he thought there were good many
| other Senators in the same condition.
As he had already given sufficient
reasons why he would support the bill,
he would now yield to the motion to
recOmm nit it.
| Mr. Sooner said that if he felt in re-
gard to the bill as the Senator from
Kansas had expressed himself, he could
not be brought, in difference TO any
clamor or to any consideration, to sup
port it,
| Morgan, in favoring the recommittal
OF the bill, said If he had the money of
| Jay Gould, his talents, his enterprise,
and his ambition to absorb railroads
and to put them under a single owner
ship, lie W uld not want any better law
! passed than this law in relation 20
! pooling.
Cullom rose to close the debate. He
| had been listening all day to assaults
on the bill until he had almost become
| convinced that he was most vicious to
ward railroads and that the bill was in
| tended to destroy the commerce of the
| country and to break down RAILROADS,
| and yet most of the assaults upon it
were in relation to the provisions which
were il the bill as it passed the Senate.
! The pr ing officer, having stated
the question to be, on agreeing to
the conference report. Mr.. Eye
| moved to recommit the report, with in
l.struction to the Senate conferees to in.
slst on striking out section 4, and
substituting section of the Senate bill;
also on striking out section 5, and sub
shutting therefor section 10 of the Sen
az bAAAI nulC1 10 llS ClduSC AHAliS5
the commissioners to investigate the
subject of pooling, and report at some
future day
Mr.. EYarts said he would vote to re
commit, believing that that action
would bring Congress and the country
nearer TO 8 good bill than ever before.
Mr. Cull0m said he should regard the
vote on the motion to recommit as q
I6st vote on the queS ton. The vote was
ttGen on the motion to recommit, aud
the motion was rel cted-yeas %, nays
IS, 81 follows:
Yeas-MeSsrs. Aldrich. Blair, Brown,
Cameron, Chase, Cheney. Eyarts, Frye,
Gray, Hale, Hampton, Hawley. Hoar,
Mahcne, Mitchell (0reg M. Mitchell
{Pennsylvania). Morgan, Morrill,,
Payne, Platt Sawyer. Seweil. Sherman,
Spooner, Williams-25.
Nays-Messrs Allison, Beck, Berry,
6iackbufn. Bowen. Call, Csckretl, Coke,
Colqqitt, Conger. Cuiiom, Doiph. Ed
| munds, iEustis. Fair, George, Gibson,
German, harrizs ingalls,, Jones
sAir,Asnsas), Jones Nevads). Nc
MILAN, Henderson, Palmer Plumb,
Pughr Sabin, Salisbury, Teller, Vance,
vest, Walthall. Whitthorne, Wilson